17:00:08 <gouthamr> #startmeeting tc
17:00:08 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Tue Aug 19 17:00:08 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is gouthamr. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:08 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
17:00:08 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
17:00:18 <slaweq> o/
17:00:33 <gouthamr> Welcome to the weekly meeting of the OpenStack Technical Committee. A reminder that this meeting is held under the OpenInfra Code of Conduct available at https://openinfra.dev/legal/code-of-conduct.
17:00:37 <gouthamr> Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee
17:00:41 <gouthamr> #topic Roll Call
17:00:46 <gtema> o/
17:00:47 <gmaan> o/
17:01:10 <noonedeadpunk> o/
17:01:23 <frickler> \o
17:01:30 <cardoe> o/
17:01:46 <mnasiadka> o/
17:02:33 <gouthamr> noted absence: b a u z a s
17:02:54 <spotz[m]> o/
17:02:54 <gouthamr> courtesy ping: spotz[m]
17:03:13 <spotz[m]> Ha!
17:03:17 <gouthamr> :P
17:03:28 <gouthamr> hello everyone, welcome! lets get started
17:03:36 <gouthamr> #topic Last Week's AIs
17:04:18 <gouthamr> we wanted to follow up on the proposed goal of migrating from WSGI scripts to module paths
17:04:18 <gouthamr> #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/proposed/migrate-from-wsgi-scripts-to-module-paths.html
17:04:49 <gouthamr> stephenfin will be updating us about this; so we'll check on this AI next week
17:05:18 <gouthamr> we discussed the runtime update for 2026.1, and wanted to continue the discussion with a proposal
17:05:39 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/957199 (Define testing runtime for 2026.1 release)
17:06:19 <gouthamr> could use a few more pairs of eyes
17:06:48 <gouthamr> we'll discuss more on the ongoing retirement of monasca repos in a bit
17:07:36 <gouthamr> i do see some more actionable items discussed during our CI discussion last week, we'll catch up on these during the same slot in a bit
17:08:11 <gouthamr> that's all the AIs i see, was anyone working on anything else?
17:09:33 <gouthamr> #topic 2026.1 Election update
17:10:00 <gouthamr> ty for joining us here slaweq ; i had this slot to discuss how things
17:10:53 <slaweq> sure, no problem
17:10:57 <slaweq> we are closing nominations tomorrow at 23:45 utc, so far we don't have approved candidates for 20 projects
17:11:05 <slaweq> Adjutant Barbican Blazar Cloudkitty Cyborg Glance Magnum Manila Masakari Mistral Monasca OpenStackAnsible OpenStack_Charms Quality_Assurance Rally Swift Tacker Trove Venus Vitrage
17:11:30 <slaweq> but for some of them we have proposals which needs to be reviewd by ianychoi and mostly should be good
17:11:38 <gouthamr> does math, about ~1 day, 6 hours left
17:11:49 <fungi> slaweq: see my earlier mention in the election channel, the cyborg nomination just needs to be reviewed again
17:11:54 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/election+status:open
17:12:13 <slaweq> fungi I already gave +2 for the cyborg nomination
17:12:42 <gouthamr> its quite helpful to see the "nominations_last_days" email, and ty for working with the cyborg contributors through the OIF staff, fungi
17:13:18 <gouthamr> i posted on several IRC channels and some changes from past PTLs from teams that don't use IRC
17:13:25 <slaweq> There are 2 patches with -1 currently, one is for Rally PTL, I already commented that Andriy should renew membership
17:13:41 <opendevreview> Pierre Riteau proposed openstack/election master: Add Pierre Riteau candidacy for Blazar 2026.1 PTL  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/957961
17:13:52 <gmaan> I will submit for QA today, i meant to yesterday but got distracted
17:13:54 <slaweq> and for Blazar it is a bit different as  it seems that Matt Crees don' have any patches merged to the project in last year
17:14:13 <slaweq> regarding TC, we have 2 candidates approved now
17:14:31 <slaweq> and 1 proposal opened today
17:14:32 <gouthamr> mattcrees had a change in the pipeline, but rpittau seems to be contesting now ^
17:14:35 <slaweq> but still missing at least 1 more
17:15:26 <mnasiadka> gouthamr: priteau not rpittau ;-) (I know it looks nearly the same)
17:15:35 <gouthamr> oh boy, ty!
17:15:40 * gouthamr doesn't want to influence the specific changes...
17:15:59 <gouthamr> i was concerned we have many "roadblocks" during this cycle's nomination window
17:17:00 <priteau> slaweq: we discussed Blazar together (we are colleagues), I will be candidate for this cycle and we will make sure Matt is eligible for the next election.
17:17:02 <gouthamr> holidays like we've had over the past, this new requirement to renew OIF membership; and i see the OIF web APIs changing underneath us having election officials to go the extra mile
17:17:10 <slaweq> there is also problem with names in the https://governance.openstack.org/election/ page but this seems to be like that due to what we got from OIF api
17:17:13 <gmaan> I thought you said rpittau for TC :) though its good idea if rpittau reading....
17:17:16 <fungi> summary there is i've just about got a short-term solution worked out with the foundation's webdev contracting firm, should hopefully be corrected later today so we get full names and irc nicks for everyone again
17:18:03 <slaweq> thx fungi for taking care of this
17:18:16 <slaweq> that's I think all from my side for elections
17:18:19 <fungi> just sorry it's taken so long
17:18:24 <gouthamr> ty fungi..
17:19:01 <gouthamr> no problem; its good to air out why things have been different, and that we're chasing resolution
17:20:32 <ianychoi> (following up to read message thank u for detailed sharing slaweq )
17:21:33 <gouthamr> there are still several projects that are seemingly active, but, i feel sad/frustrated that they don't follow through on election procedures or contributors are hard to reach via irc/mailing list
17:21:50 <gouthamr> i don
17:22:18 <gouthamr> t know exactly if we need to rectify that somehow
17:23:02 <gouthamr> i feel like we do - we've seen this play over and over that its getting a bit tiring
17:23:37 <gouthamr> /endrant
17:23:43 <cardoe> You're not wrong
17:24:07 <JayF> I would suggest that implies that some of those projects may no longer be a good fit for our governance model.
17:24:47 <gmaan> I noticed the communication is main key in every election and there are always late or PTL appointment for many projects
17:25:18 <gmaan> election officials doing great improvement in that especially slaweq and ianychoi but still projects miss the nomination
17:25:34 <gouthamr> ^ where are we going wrong there? election schedules are being posted way earlier than we used to, in the past
17:25:40 <slaweq> I know it is maybe not topic for now, but maybe it is time to rething our model in general, maybe having PTL election is not really needed anymore
17:25:44 <gmaan> I am not sure how to solve it.
17:26:21 <gmaan> yeah, I think we are doing more than needed and best but still project maintainers needs to understand the important of leadership role
17:26:35 <slaweq> and maybe this should be left for team to be organized internally as currently teams are generally smaller and in fact in many cases they "choose" internally one person who will nominate themself for PTL, so election is in most cases just formality
17:26:55 <gmaan> yeah, that is also true and not a bad idea
17:28:03 <fungi> while i commend the election officials on their hard work and dedication, i'm disappointed that just as i had feared it's become a new election official responsibility to chase down prospective candidates and hound them until they follow the nomination process
17:28:05 <slaweq> so IMO we could only have TC elections and left project leadership to be decided by teams internally, but this is just an idea which maybe TC can discuss at some point, not today for sure :)
17:28:43 <gouthamr> sometimes, the "hand off" from PTL to next-PTL isn't happening - but this exercise might be a sledgehammer to that nail
17:28:44 <gmaan> but again we need to make sure every project has PTL
17:28:58 <spotz[m]> When we had multiple candidates elections made sense for sure
17:29:50 <JayF> I can't help but wonder, if these teams aren't active for elections, why should we assume they'll be responsive for a security issue if one is reported to the VMT? Or that the project in question will be eventlet-migrated? I have trouble seeing the election inactivity in a vacuum.
17:30:15 <gouthamr> i agree with you, JayF
17:30:26 <ianychoi> Yeah, i can also comment that competition ratio has been decreasing - like no voting
17:30:26 <fungi> getting them to follow release processes too
17:30:36 <JayF> I just suggest whatever solution we find keeps in mind that "no PTL election" will likely have the effect of pushing the effort of finding someone who is responsive onto teams like VMT or release team.
17:30:52 <fungi> it's become a release manager responsibility to chase down ptls/liaisons to get release stages approved
17:31:07 <gmaan> we did that in past and retired many such project but still it is every election story that new set of projects in that list
17:31:29 <fungi> and a vmt member responsibility to repeatedly hound teams to follow up on vulnerability reorts for that matter
17:31:33 <noonedeadpunk> and it's way worse during summer elections as well
17:31:35 <spotz[m]> Maybe an alternative term could even fix the problem
17:31:45 * noonedeadpunk failed to submit their candidacy so far
17:31:46 <slaweq> I am not proposing to not have PTLs at all, I'm just saying that maybe election process is not that much needed these days
17:32:02 <slaweq> and we actually already have some kind of alternative which is DPL
17:32:11 <fungi> noonedeadpunk: norrthern hemisphere summer i suppose you mean? ;)
17:32:24 <fungi> it's winter for half the world right now
17:32:35 <noonedeadpunk> oh, yes, thanks for correction
17:33:45 <gouthamr> we created the election directories a while ago, and asked for folks to nominate themselves a couple months ago iirc:
17:33:46 <gouthamr> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/949554
17:35:03 <opendevreview> Ghanshyam proposed openstack/election master: Add Ghanshyam candidacy for QA PTL  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/957963
17:35:55 <gouthamr> lets let folks ruminate on the implications of this discussion, and open it up to the community via the ML and the upcoming PTG
17:36:03 <gmaan> ++
17:36:31 <noonedeadpunk> Well, doesn;t seem this had any effect
17:36:52 <gouthamr> yeah, explains the hair pulling on my part :D
17:37:27 <gouthamr> in other discussions today, folks were catching up on what happens if there are not enough TC candidates
17:37:53 <ianychoi> And, any suggestions to advertise to renew OIF memberships from election officials? Seems that we are prioritizing discussions for candidates
17:39:07 <gouthamr> ianychoi: yes, i think its a short term problem, and your comments linking people to the renewal page are helpful and being acted upon
17:40:16 <frickler> it is also a problem for the electorate I think? like 50% of active contributors will not be allowed to vote (if it comes to elections)
17:40:55 <fungi> did you compare that to the percentage who were members in the previous cycle?
17:40:57 <gouthamr> true, do fungi and you want to paraphrase what this has done to the electorate per your current calculations?
17:41:50 <frickler> I don't have numbers from the previous elections, if I run the script now for tag 0.18.0, I get data based on current membership state
17:42:22 <spotz[m]> There's one more TC candidate coming
17:42:29 <frickler> maybe slaweq or ianychoi have concrete data they can make this comparison with
17:42:38 <fungi> right, we'd need to look at the _all_owners.yaml file an election official might have saved from last election
17:44:09 <fungi> but for the moment it looks like most of the contributors who were keeping their member status updated previously have probably renewed them. we need to spend a bit more time researching to say how much impact it's had
17:44:13 <opendevreview> Dmitriy Rabotyagov proposed openstack/election master: Add Dmitriy Rabotyagov candidacy for OpenStack-Ansible  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/957965
17:44:22 <ianychoi> https://opendev.org/openstack/election/src/branch/master/tools/tc-election-summary.py#L134 helps?
17:44:44 <slaweq> I don't have any data like that
17:44:47 <fungi> ianychoi: only if it has a breakdown of how many change owners weren't foundation members
17:45:16 <opendevreview> Dmitriy Rabotyagov proposed openstack/election master: Add Dmitriy Rabotyagov candidacy for OpenStack-Ansible  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/957965
17:46:08 <fungi> i have similar data i can check from last cycle but it's for release contributor counts not election cycles, but probably could give us the basic numbers we're looking for
17:46:14 <spotz[m]> noonedeadpunk: You had me worried!
17:46:46 <fungi> i'll try to work on that after my meetings
17:46:48 <noonedeadpunk> spotz[m]: I'd prefer getting some timeout tbh, but well...
17:47:10 <gouthamr> i have _all_owners.yaml from March 2025
17:47:16 <gouthamr> we can chat fungi
17:47:18 <spotz[m]> Maybe start training someone?:)
17:47:22 <fungi> gouthamr: perfect
17:47:48 <gouthamr> spotz[m]: that is honestly a great thing to bring up
17:47:50 <ianychoi> fungi: thank you. Execution of election official tool may find the number of electorates who can vote but it is not easy to compare who renewed/not renewed OIF
17:48:26 <gouthamr> we've spent quite a lot of time on this
17:48:49 <gouthamr> i can add a topic to the next week's meeting to continue this discussion and proceed to the other topics we had today, any objections?
17:49:20 * gouthamr going once..twice...
17:49:54 <gouthamr> ty ianychoi for joining us, its nearly 3am your time - i don't know if i should just make you some coffee at this point
17:50:07 <gouthamr> ty slaweq
17:50:10 <gouthamr> #topic Monasca retirement open questions
17:50:10 <gouthamr> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/monasca-retirement
17:50:40 <gouthamr> ^ on this, we need to start merging changes to "empty" out the repositories..
17:50:42 <slaweq> thanks for the discussion, I am calling it a day now :)
17:50:55 <ianychoi> (Thank you all - may drink water first and consider re-sleeping vs. following-up some items :p )
17:51:11 <gouthamr> yes, please do!
17:51:19 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/q/hashtag:%22monasca-retirement%22+(status:open%20OR%20status:merged)
17:51:35 <gmaan> I saw monasca-api one which was still failing
17:51:37 <gmaan> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/monasca-api/+/957064
17:51:46 <gmaan> something we need to cleanup on unmaintained branches?
17:52:16 <gouthamr> yes there are a couple of changes that failed CI here because the unmaintained/2023.1 branch depended on a job definition from master (thanks for investigating this, clarkb)
17:52:37 <frickler> or force-merge the change on master and ignore the branches?
17:52:40 <fungi> unmaintained branches on retired projects can probably be deleted
17:52:52 <gmaan> yeah, deleting them is good idea
17:53:02 <noonedeadpunk> ++
17:53:16 <gouthamr> i can check, but i don't think anything merged after those branches were created
17:53:35 <gouthamr> if there's nothing changed, we can ignore tagging stuff and just proceed with deletion, yeah?
17:53:52 <fungi> probably a question for elodilles
17:53:53 <gouthamr> s/those branches/"unmaintained 2023.1 branch"
17:54:00 <gmaan> yeah, we do not tag/release them anyways
17:54:03 <fungi> but i expect so
17:54:12 <fungi> we do tag them when deleting
17:54:21 <gmaan> oh, EOL
17:54:27 <fungi> but there's a process elodilles follows
17:54:37 <fungi> i'd recommend syncing up with him on the details
17:54:54 <gouthamr> ty fungi; i expected it to be on some doc somewhere, but was unsuccessful finding it
17:55:24 <gouthamr> will connect with elodilles; and when i have some updates, i'm going to start bugging tc-members to review/merge these open changes
17:55:48 <gouthamr> this change itself will not pass without all those repos being "empty": https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/953671
17:56:12 <gouthamr> ^ does anyone prefer seeing a whole bunch of "Depends-On" in the commit message here?
17:56:18 <frickler> you'd create an -eol tag via a release patch and then a release team member can run a script that deletes the branches
17:56:38 <frickler> no, don't add 20 depends, please
17:56:45 <gouthamr> i thought so :P
17:56:54 <gmaan> yeah, leghacy script take care of the cleanup we do not need depends-on
17:56:58 <gmaan> legacy
17:57:09 <gouthamr> okay, good stuff
17:57:21 <gouthamr> that's all i had for $topic.. you'll hear about this stuff later
17:57:50 <gouthamr> fungi: can i defer the legacy/status tagging topic on PyPi to next week?
17:58:05 <fungi> yes, there's no urgency for that
17:58:07 <gouthamr> ty
17:58:12 <gouthamr> since we only have a couple mins
17:58:13 <gouthamr> #topic Open Discussion
17:58:15 <fungi> the default anible version update in zuul has resulted in ubunti-bionic nodes no longer being usable unless the jobs are overridden to use ansible 9, but that version won't be available much longer. this has broken most jobs for py27, py36 and py37, though py27 jobs at least may be able to run on newer ubuntu nodes. we also saw one skyline job that had some vars declared in a
17:58:17 <fungi> way that newer ansible dislikes (and was possibly not working as expected before either, just silently accepted)
17:58:27 <gouthamr> ^ very nice, was going to ask
17:59:08 <gouthamr> was the skyline thing a dependency on these older python versions?
17:59:14 <fungi> no
17:59:23 <gouthamr> ubuntu bionic then
17:59:31 <fungi> just vars being declared in a weird/wrong way that older ansible didn't complain about
17:59:34 <gouthamr> ah
17:59:41 <clarkb> before we changed it I hda to fix the multinode bridge role to vendor the openvswitch_bridge module because that entire ansible collection is deprecated and no longer included in ansible
18:00:04 <fungi> impact to maintained openstack branches should be fairly minor and easily correctable, but there were apparently some projects still testing with old python versions (pbr is an extreme case)
18:00:12 <clarkb> I think that devstack/tempest are the primary users of this role. It would probably be a good idea to rewrite the role to use linux bridges instead of ovs and avoid code that may stop working with ansible in he future
18:00:47 <clarkb> basically its working for now, but we have no idea for how long. Best would be to replace it with other tools that should avoid problems
18:00:48 <frickler> predicting future ansible quirks? that's a tough thing to do
18:01:49 <gouthamr> #link https://forum.ansible.com/t/several-collections-have-been-deprecated-by-the-ansible-network-team/6360
18:02:56 <gouthamr> ty for the heads up there and for the fixes
18:03:02 <gouthamr> s/fixes/bandaids
18:03:10 <gouthamr> anything else to note for the minutes today?
18:03:37 <noonedeadpunk> oops. openvswitch.openvswitch is indeed huge
18:03:55 <clarkb> we only currently use the one module
18:05:13 <gouthamr> alright, we've run past the hour
18:05:21 <gouthamr> ty all for joining and the lively discussion
18:05:30 <gouthamr> #endmeeting